Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

Drug decriminalization policy pays off

Marijuana buds are shown at a marijuana dispensary in Oakland, California. |
Reuters
Close

By GLENN GREENWALD |
10/14/10 4:46 AM EDT

Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, a measure to legalize marijuana. Because no state has ever taken such a step, voters are being subjected to a stream of fear-mongering assertions, unaccompanied by evidence, about what is likely to happen if drug prohibition is repealed.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

Ten years ago, Portugal became the first Western nation to pass full-scale, nationwide decriminalization. That law, passed Oct. 1, 2000, abolished criminal sanctions for all narcotics — not just marijuana but also “hard drugs” like heroin and cocaine.

This applies only to drugs for personal use; drug trafficking remains a criminal offense. There is now a decade’s worth of empirical data on what actually happens — and does not happen — when criminal sanctions against drug possession are lifted.

Individuals caught with drugs in Portugal are no longer arrested or treated as criminals. Instead, they are sent to a tribunal of health professionals, where they are offered the opportunity, but are not compelled, to seek government-provided treatment.

For those found to be addicts, tribunals have the power to impose noncriminal sanctions. But in practice, the overriding goal is to direct people to treatment.

By any metric, Portugal’s drug-decriminalization scheme has been a resounding success. Drug usage in many categories has decreased in absolute terms, including for key demographic groups, like 15-to-19-year-olds. Where usage rates have increased, the increases have been modest — far less than in most other European Union nations, which continue to use a criminalization approach.

Portugal, whose drug problems were among the worst in Europe, now has the lowest usage rate for marijuana and one of the lowest for cocaine. Drug-related pathologies, including HIV transmission, hepatitis transmission and drug-related deaths, have declined significantly.

Beyond the data, Portugal’s success with decriminalization is illustrated by the absence of political agitation for a return to criminalization. As one might expect for a socially conservative and predominantly Roman Catholic country, the decriminalization proposal sparked intense controversy a decade ago.

Many politicians insisted that a vast parade of horribles would be unleashed, including massive increases in drug use among youth and the conversion of Lisbon into a “drug haven for tourists.”

While bullets fly into El Paso and bodies pile up in the streets of Juarez, and thugs with gold-plated AK-47s and albino tiger pens are beheading federal officials and dissolving their torsos in vats of acid, here are some facts concerning the peaceful situation in Holland. --Please save a copy and use it as a reference when debating prohibitionists who claim the exact opposite concerning reality as presented here below:

Cannabis-coffee-shops are not only restricted to the Capital of Holland, Amsterdam. They can be found in more than 50 cities and towns across the country. At present, only the retail sale of five grams is tolerated, so production remains criminalized. The mayors of a majority of the cities with coffeeshops have long urged the national government to also decriminalize the supply side.

A poll taken earlier this year indicated that some 50% of the Dutch population thinks cannabis should be fully legalized while only 25% wanted a complete ban. Even though 62% of the voters said they had never taken cannabis. An earlier poll also indicated 80% opposing coffee shop closures. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/a... /> It is true that the number of coffee shops has fallen from its peak of around 2,500 throughout the country to around 700 now. The problems, if any, concern mostly marijuana-tourists and are largely confined to cities and small towns near the borders with Germany and Belgium. These problems, mostly involve traffic jams, and are the result of cannabis prohibition in neighboring countries. Public nuisance problems with the coffee shops are minimal when compared with bars, as is demonstrated by the rarity of calls for the police for problems at coffee shops.

While it is true that lifetime and past-month use rates did increase back in the seventies and eighties, the critics shamefully fail to report that there were comparable and larger increases in cannabis use in most, if not all, neighboring countries which continued complete prohibition.

According to the World Health Organization only 19.8 percent of the Dutch have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure. In Holland 9.7% of young adults (aged 15 to 24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%). Few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the compared countries.

The WHO survey of 17 countries finds that the United States has the highest usage rates for nearly all illegal substances.

In the U.S. 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana. The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the U.S. again leading the world by a large margin.

Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana. Again, the U.S. led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in Holland, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15 -- roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.thttp://www.alternet.org/drugs... /> In 1998, the US Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey claimed that the U.S. had less than half the murder rate of the Netherlands. That’s drugs, he explained. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics immediately issued a special press release explaining that the actual Dutch murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, or less than one-quarter the U.S. murder rate.

Here’s a very recent article by a psychiatrist from Amsterdam, exposing Drug Czar misinformation http://tinyurl.com/247a8mp

Now let's look at a comparative analysis of the levels of cannabis use in two cities: Amsterdam and San Francisco, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health May 2004,

The San Francisco prevalence survey showed that 39.2% of the population had used cannabis. This is 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample

Source: Craig Reinarman, Peter D.A. Cohen and Hendrien L. Kaal, The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limi... /> Moreover, 51% of people who had smoked cannabis in San Francisco reported that they were offered heroin, cocaine or amphetamine the last time they purchased cannabis. In contrast, only 15% of Amsterdam residents who had ingested marijuana reported the same conditions. Prohibition is the ‘Gateway Policy’ that forces cannabis seekers to buy from criminals who gladly expose them to harder drugs.

The indicators of death, disease and corruption are even much better in the Netherlands than in Sweden for instance, a country praised by UNODC for its so called successful drug policy.

It's unfortunate that Fox Puppet Megyn Kelly says things like, "...crazy, schizos on pot are going to burst into my home and kill me and my baby" ... All the while, Stossel tries to talk her down from hysteria.

Hmmm. Do these drugs contribute to the downfall of a society which endangers the country?

Let's see, three countries in most danger in Europe - Greece, Spain and Portugal.

State with largest problem in U.S. - California.

So makes sense, liberal politicians have ruined California so let's make it legal to get high and stay high. I guess a polluted mass and a high mass make for people who forget about the stupidity of Sacramento legislature.

Go ahead libbie's, make everyone's day. Pass pot legalization. Then Jerry can lose and go home to his bong and name everyone some great name like Saturn Ring or something.

Does this nation really need a bunch more drugged out Left Wing Nuts? Fine, legalize all drugs but only if the consequences of causing harm to others while under the influence is a Draconian punishment and NO taxpayer money to be used for drug rehab. all

The Loony Left Democrats want all the freedom but "Zero" responsibility that would come with it.

“High”, my name is Howard Dean and I’ll be your surgeon today EEEEYAAAAAAWWWW!”…

While the looney left is trying to make it easier to get stoned, the drug cartels are shooting across the border and tossing people's heads into police stations. Mexico has turned into a lawless failed narco state because the stoners in this country can't think beyond their next fix about the consequences of their actions. Cal them what they are - accomplices to murder and mayhem. Instead of decriminalizing pot, they should increase the penalties and the ability to detect it in the workplace and traffic stops.

Legalizing marijuana may save a little money in the judicial/penal system at the local level, but it won't stop the foreign drug cartels. If the 'legal stuff' is taxed and made more expensive, it will just create a black market for the lower priced, tax free 'imported stuff' from our good neighbors south of the border. Nothing much will change concerning drug use, unless the demand for drugs decreases. It's just simple economics - as long as there's a demand for a service or product, there will be a supplier to satisfy that demand - whether it's 'legal' or not. And the demand market, whether it's a 'free' or 'controlled' market, will set the price of the product.

The war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure, costing the U.S. tens of billions instead of collecting tens of billions in taxes, anyone can still go buy pot or cocaine or heroin in any U.S. city right now, there is no plausible argument for prohibition.

I wonder if some of you people even read these stories, or if you just continue to babble on with your ignorant talking points and the opinions that Rush, Olbermann, or Hannity convinced you to have. How about looking at the research and coming to an INFORMED decision, not only on this, but on all issues...

the drug cartels are shooting across the border and tossing people's heads into police stations

Drug cartels -- just like moonshining racketeers during Prohibition -- only exist because the profits derived from an illegal product are far higher than the risks incurred.

IOW, they exist because the product is illegal. This is why you don't see liquor store owners shooting it out in the streets over "turf."

If the 'legal stuff' is taxed and made more expensive, it will just create a black market for the lower priced, tax free 'imported stuff' from our good neighbors south of the border

Legalization & regulation would almost certainly cause prices to drop, not rise. This is because the high price is directly associated with the increased costs of production, & those increased costs are a direct result of the increased risks of producing an illegal product.

That's basic economics 101: supply-&-demand.

Note that many of the currently illegal growers in northern California -- many of whom I personally know -- are working diligently to find out what they need to do to "go legal", because they know that pasage of CA19 is going to destroy their business. If you think this is just an issue for the growers, then you don't realize just how much marijuana money is literally floating the economies of Humboldt, Trinity, & Mendocino counties, & how much even the governments of those counties are worried over the coming economic bite. There have even been people passing out bumperstickers saying "Save Humboldt County -- keep pot illegal!" -- which really ought tell you all you need to know about the idiocy of Prohibition.

Legalization & regulation would almost certainly cause prices to drop, not rise. This is because the high price is directly associated with the increased costs of production, & those increased costs are a direct result of the increased risks of producing an illegal product.

That's basic economics 101: supply-&-demand.

Prices would drop only if you're speaking of a tax-free, unregulated 'free' market, which is economics 101.

Living in California, do you realize how much less expensive gasoline would be if there was no per gallon state tax? Or how much less expensive cars would be if there were no regulation compliance mandates built into automobile prices? One of the main reasons prohibition was repealed was that the government saw how much revenue it could take in by taxing alcohol and issuing expensive permits to retailers to be able to sell it.

If people that regularly use marijuana can get it on the street (like they always have) for less than what they can buy it for at a 'licensed' retail store - which dime bag are they going to buy?

If people that regularly use marijuana can get it on the street (like they always have) for less than what they can buy it for at a 'licensed' retail store

They won't be getting it cheaper on the street. People "on the street" are going to be illegal, & will thus have a much riskier business than will those who are legal, & so they will sell at higher prices. You have only to look at the prices in Amsterdam, & compare them to prices for the same substances here in America "on the street", to see the point.

Let me put it this way: compare the cost of an ounce of tobacco, to an ounce of marijuana. Now, imagine what would happen if tobacco were banned. Prohibition would not kill the demand, but it would kill the easily available supply, meaning the supply would decrease. When supply decreases, but demand remains the same, prices will go up -- that is basic economics. Adding the cost of taxes & regulation to the production cost is nowhere near comparable to the increased risk of making & distributing an illegal product, because those risks are not merely dealing with law enforcement, but also with other criminals who want to muscle you out of your product & profit.

Or, you could think about it this way. The old saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is just as rock-solid true about "drugs", as it is about guns. Banning the product does not eliminate either the product, or the demand for the product; it only increases the , scope, power, & cost of the government bureacracies needed to administer the prohibition, as well as the ineveitable LEO/government corruption that will occur with massive amounts of money. This is why Prohibition is a policy that can only be supported by those who love Big Brother, & who dislike freedom.

I can understand why Progressivist "nanny state" leftists would support such a policy. I can not at all reconcile the arguments made by "conservatives" in favor of small government, less regulation, lower taxes, & more personal liberty with their demands for Prohibition.

The Sheygetz: Oct. 14, 2010 - 10:29 AM EST

do you realize how much less expensive gasoline would be if there was no per gallon state tax?

I also realize that I can't make my own gasoline, whereas under legalization, I can learn to grow my own green bud -- just as I can currently brew my own beer, wine, & mead -- & only pay actual taxes on the equipment needed.

One of the main reasons prohibition was repealed was that the government saw how much revenue it could take in by taxing alcohol and issuing expensive permits to retailers to be able to sell it.

Ironically, the exact same argument is being made for the repealing of marijuana prohibition. There is no reason to think it wouldn't, or at least couldn't, apply to marijuana & other currently illegal substances, just as it did to alcohol.

I note that the cost of a 6-pack of beer, or a bottle of regular wine, etc., is well-within the purchase ability of the average Joe Worker ... which is precisely why the government can still make revenue from taxation, because the cost of production has not dramatically increased to the point that consumption has decreased, despite the regulation & taxation.

That is because, as I said earlier, the risks inherent to production of an illegal commodity are no longer there, & those risks are far more expensive to deal with than taxes & regulations. One of those risks is needing to deal with other criminals who wish to muscle you out of your business, i.e., shooting it out over turf. That doesn't happen with alcohol any more, though it absolutely did when alcohol was illegal.

Contrary to what most Drug Warriors seem to think, Prohibition causes crime -- it does nothing whatsoever to eliminate it. The crime caused by Prohibition is, I contend, a greater societal problem than the consumption of the substances.

When you go to a strange liquore store or bar, you don't need to worry about whether or not the bottles have been doctored or adulterated with dangerous "filler" substances designed to increase product volume without increasing production costs. This is because production is regulated by food-&-drug safety standards.

None of that applies to currently illegal substances, which by definition can't be regulated for safety at all.

Now, some people might claim that such substances can't be made "safe", but that's a mis-conception; it's not what I'm talking about at all. What I'm talking about is the old practice of "cutting" -- for example -- pure LSD with strychnine. Pure LSD is a fairly "safe" substance; it's been proven, for example, that you can't "overdose" on it. You might have really intense & long-lasting "trip" if you take a lot of it, but it won't kill you. Add strychnine to it, however, & you could easily have a problem.

The exact same is true of the various "white powder poisons", which are regularly cut with all sorts of substances -- & the buyer has no way of knowing at all whether the powder was cut, let alone with what. But it's an issue with marijuana, too, because the product could have been sprayed with nasty sprays -- malathion/paraquat, for example -- & there's little-to-no way a purchaser will know of that contamination.

Regulation, of course, solves that issue; that's the whole freekin' point for having a Food & Drug Administration in the first place. The bottom line is that you can't prevent people from wanting to consume intoxicating substances, you can do something to mitigate the risk, both to the user & to a lesser extent society, by regulating the substance. It's why we regulate tobacco, it's why we regulate alcohol, it's why we regulate prescription medicines that can have potentially intoxicating effects -- there is no reason in the world that logic can't be applied to any currently illegal substance.

I also realize that I can't make my own gasoline, whereas under legalization, I can learn to grow my own green bud -- just as I can currently brew my own beer, wine, & mead -- & only pay actual taxes on the equipment needed.

One can also sell those products illegally as well, even though legal. taxed versions exist, if it's economically feasible for one to do so. My point is that there will still be 'illegal' versions of 'legal' products on the market should marijuana become legal. A heroin or cocaine cartel can also dabble in 'illegal' marijuana trade. Or local marijuana growers will still be able to sell it on the black market - or to other states or areas where it isn't 'legal'. In addition to 'licensed' growers, there will still be illegal 'unlicensed' growers that can undercut the price of the 'legal' version of the same product.

The old saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is just as rock-solid true about "drugs", as it is about guns. Banning the product does not eliminate either the product, or the demand for the product; it only increases the , scope, power, & cost of the government bureacracies needed to administer the prohibition, as well as the ineveitable LEO/government corruption that will occur with massive amounts of money. This is why Prohibition is a policy that can only be supported by those who love Big Brother, & who dislike freedom.

Legalization of drugs would result in a marked increase in drug use just as legalization of gambling resulted in more gambling. Decriminalization would do the same thing. Drug dealers traditionally target the youth who are most susceptible since as we now know, their frontal lobes are undeveloped leading to unwise risky behavior. Marijuana is an addictive drug with many harmful effects, especially for the youth. Drug addiction is not so easily overcome as the popular press would lead you to believe. Anyone who cares about children would oppose drug legalization/decriminalization. all

It is absurd to compare the US with little Portugal which ethnically, culturally, and historically is very different. There is of course a powerful heavily financed pro-drug lobby targeting our kids just as the tobacco industry did for decades. So-called medicinal marijuana is just a scam to increase use which it has done. all

One can also sell those products illegally as well, even though legal. taxed versions exist

I suppose, but living in the San Francisco Bay Area, I've never heard of a market for illegal gasoline. I'm not sure why there would be, given that legal gasoline is available all over the place. It seems to me that the convenience of openly purchasing a legal product is far more appealing than the avoidance of taxes, & from what I can see, most people in this area seem to think so.

The Sheygetz: Oct. 14, 2010 - 11:11 AM EST

My point is that there will still be 'illegal' versions of 'legal' products on the market should marijuana become legal

That's possible, sure, but since that hasn't happened with alcohol -- there's no more market for illegal alcohol in my area, or anywhere else I've been in America, than there is for illegal gasoline -- I'm not sure why it would happen with marijuana.

Again, the only "benefit" to consuming from the illegal market is the avoidance of taxes & regulation, but the hazards inherent to participating in that illegal market seem to strongly over-ride any benefits, & that's why the vast bulk of people seem willing to put up with the taxes & regulation, in favor of convenience & safety.

amory21: Oct. 14, 2010 - 11:11 AM EST

Legalization of drugs would result in a marked increase in drug use

IOW, you didn't read the article, where Portugal's experience with decriminalization was exactly the opposite?

amory21: Oct. 14, 2010 - 11:11 AM EST

Marijuana is an addictive drug with many harmful effects, especially for the youth

Alcohol, though legal, is arguably far more harmful. Prohibition of alcohol, however, wasn't the right policy answer in 1918, nor was it the right policy answer for marijuana in 1937, nor is it the right policy answer for any illegal substance in 2010.

Anyone who cares about children would oppose drug legalization/decriminalization.

IMO, attitudes like this are the beginning of left-wing Progressivist nanny-states.

Think about, & care about, your own children. Don't drag Big Brother in to "protect" mine; doing so only makes Obama smile happily, because he's more than happy to "be there" for them.